extract_code_snippets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that it extracts from a transcript and listing detectable content types. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description complements well. However, it could mention prerequisites like transcript availability.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Concise two-sentence description plus a bulleted list of detectable items and combination suggestions. Front-loaded with main purpose. Slightly more structured formatting could improve scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With two parameters fully covered by schema, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately explains the tool's function and suggests complementary tools. It could clarify output format, but overall sufficient for an extraction tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description doesn't need to add much. It does not elaborate on videoId or language beyond what schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it extracts code snippets, CLI commands, and programming content from video transcripts, specifically for developer tutorials. It lists detectable content types, distinguishing it from siblings like extract_links_mentions and find_github_links.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly suggests combining with find_tech_stack, find_github_links, get_tutorial_steps, and for complete dev notes use convert_to_notes. Provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.